Re: [oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Carlos Rafael Giani]

On 2014-09-17 02:20, Khem Raj wrote:



On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani 
mailto:d...@pseudoterminal.org>> wrote:


On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:

Hi Carlos/All

I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to

meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb


in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since

The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater
detail here


http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607

So what portions of it are having different terms for
commercial distribution ?

Thanks

-Khem


It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties


In what way where the component is lgpl I would like to understand

 This is also the reason why gst-plugins-ugly and
gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.

Carlos



*mpg123* is LGPL. But mpg123 is an implementation of an MPEG 1 audio 
layer 1/2/3 and MPEG 2 audio. MPEG-1 layer 3 is what everybody calls 
mp3. (mp1 and mp2 are pretty much dead by now.) mp3 itself contains 
patents, and these are subject to royalties. Technicolor (formerly 
Thomson) does enforce these royalties. See 
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html for their price model.

MPEG-2 is controlled by the MPEG LA.

Note that these royalties cover the audio technology itself (say, mp3), 
*not* the implementations. Implementations themselves can be subject to 
any license, it's up to the authors of the implementations. But if you 
actually want to use these implementations in a commercial product, 
you'll have to pay the royalty fees.


This is part of the reason why Ogg Vorbis (and Opus) exist. They are an 
alternative that doesn't require such fees. Therefore, the Vorbis 
decoder isn't in gst-plugins-ugly, but in gst-plugins-good.

--
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Khem Raj]

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani 
wrote:

> On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>> Hi Carlos/All
>>
>> I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
>>
>> meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
>>
>> in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
>>
>> The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
>>
>> http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
>>
>> So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial
>> distribution ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Khem
>>
>
> It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties


In what way where the component is lgpl I would like to understand



>  This is also the reason why gst-plugins-ugly and
> gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.
>
> Carlos
>
-- 
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Carlos Rafael Giani]

On 2014-09-16 23:33, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:

On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:

Hi Carlos/All

I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to

meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb

in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since

The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here

http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607

So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?

Thanks

-Khem

It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the
reason why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this
flag.

But does gst-plugins-ugly provide own codecs? It's mostly a collection of
external plugins, so it shouldn't itself be marked as "commercial":

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/51055



But the whole point of gst-plugins-ugly is to be a collection of tested 
high-quality plugins for formats and standards which are subject to 
royalties. Tested quality plugins without the royalty go to -good.

--
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:
> On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
> >Hi Carlos/All
> >
> >I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
> >
> >meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
> >
> >in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
> >
> >The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
> >
> >http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
> >
> >So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial 
> >distribution ?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >-Khem
> 
> It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the
> reason why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this
> flag.

But does gst-plugins-ugly provide own codecs? It's mostly a collection of 
external plugins, so it shouldn't itself be marked as "commercial":

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/51055

-- 
Denys
-- 
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Carlos Rafael Giani]

On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:

Hi Carlos/All

I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to

meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb

in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since

The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here

http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607

So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?

Thanks

-Khem


It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the reason 
why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.


Carlos
--
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

[oe] mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue

[Khem Raj]

Hi Carlos/All

I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to

meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb

in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since

The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here

http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607

So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?

Thanks

-Khem
-- 
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel